O.J. Guilty on All Counts - Live Blog

Update: O.J. guilty on all counts, live blog of verdict below.

The verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial is about to be read. Streaming live site is here or here.

It was 13 years ago today that the jury reached a not guilty verdict in his murder trial.

The jury has been deliberating since 8:30 a.m. this morning. The jury instructions are here (pdf). From the Las Vegas Sun:

The charges they face include 11 felonies (Conspiracy to commit kidnapping; conspiracy to commit burglary; burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon; and two counts each of first degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon; robbery with use of a deadly weapon; assault with a deadly weapon; and coercion with use of a deadly weapon. They also face one gross misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit a crime.

The jury has the power to drop "use of a deadly weapon" from the nine weapons-related charges if they choose to do so.

I watched the closing arguments this afternoon at The Legal Edge. I finished feeling nervous for O.J., thinking he needs a holdout. With the verdict coming in this soon, I'm not optimistic he got one. And yes, I'm rooting for O.J.

I'll live-blog the verdict below.


11:37 pm MT: It hasn't started yet. The lawyers are at the courthouse. I hope they aren't waiting on the Sheriff's department to arrange for taking him into custody.

My prediction: I hope I'm wrong, but I'd say it's going to be not guilty on the aggravated weapons counts (kidnapping, assault) but guilty of conspiracy or aiding and abetting simple kidnapping or assault.

11:45: Video is live now. Protesters outside chanting "Free O.J." He's walking into the courthouse, through security. Two women, his sister is one I think, linking arms with him.

11:50: Camera is moving inside the courtroom. Sound is on.

11:51: Judge is on the bench. O.J. is seated at table. Juror #3 is foreman. Co-defendant verdict's read first: Guilty of all counts. O.J. Guilty on all counts.

Polling jury now. O.J. seems pretty stoic. He's facing life in prison. There's a row of Sheriff's standing behind the defendants, with handcuffs in their hands.

Stewart's motion for judgment of acquittal and more time to file motion for new trial - denied. Motion for bail pending sentencing: Denied.

O.J. motions next. O.J. joins in Stewart's motions that were denied. Bail denied, defendants are remanded.

12:03 am: O.J. handcuffed and led away.

Sentencing set for December 5. The crying you hear in the background is (I think) the wife of the couple whose wedding O.J. went to Vegas to attend the weekend the hotel incident took place.

The Judge told the attorneys they didn't need the transcript to make their motion for new trial because she sat through the whole thing and remembers it very well. Translation: she intends to deny motion for new trial.

Court adjourned.

Any relief O.J. gets will have to come from the appellate courts. He'll be in jail at least a year waiting for that to happen.

My view: A revenge prosecution. O.J. would never have been overcharged the way he was in this case but for him being O.J.

12:10 End of live-blog.

Afterthought: The relentless Goldmans will now have no reason to keep hounding O.J. for money as he'll be in jail. They'll never see more than a fraction of the judgment they got against him. (On the other hand, I won't be surprised if they try to garnish his prison wages.) They'll claim their 15 more minutes of face time on tv this week and then, I hope, fade into oblivion.

Update: O.J. Simpson, Convicted by the Media.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Saturday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:55:55 AM EST
    ... Just...


    Guilty of armed robbery! Wow (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by themomcat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST

    15 year minimum on kidnapping alone says (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:01:20 AM EST
    CNN. Wow.

    15 years mandatory minimum per (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:03:45 AM EST
    lawyer on CNN.  

    The real tragedy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by themomcat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:05:03 AM EST
    His children. What was he thinking? He certainly wasn't thinking of his family. Did he really believe he could get away with this? Incredible how arrogant and stupid this man is.

    why don't you read a little about the facts (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:12:39 AM EST
    of the case before judging him.

    I did follow it (none / 0) (#31)
    by themomcat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:21:02 AM EST
    and from what I read the evidence was pretty damning. It seems the jury agreed. We'll see what happens on appeal.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#40)
    by cubbear42 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:38:16 AM EST
    I agree with your post.  I watched the trial as much as what was shown and the media reports didn't report the truth.  OJ was not guilty!!!

    All the others are either going to walk or have light sentences - they all had a deal with the prosecution and two of them supposedly carried guns.


    Were there guns? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Rudy13 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    I agree with you but I am also troubled by what appears to be an arrangement between the prosecution and their witnesses. In plea bargaining I would expect that the prosecution will offer a deal on condition they can get what they want. And, what they wanted was that guns were used making it an armed robbery. What is missing here is absolute proof that guns were used in that room. Sure, Alexander and McClinton said so and so did Tom Riccio. But Cashmore did not see a gun and OJ denied seeing one. Guns were found not at the scene of the crime but elsewhere. Where is the proof that guns were in that room. Maybe, I am missing something here.

    sports analogy: (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:05:05 AM EST
    this is a make-up call.

    (posted in open thread before I saw this one)

    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:08:55 AM EST
    The kidnapping charge strikes me, as a layman, as crap, but the rest of it-- I have a hard time feeling at all sorry for him or any of his idiotic cohorts.  That phone tape is devastating.

    Eventually (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by themomcat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:11:20 AM EST
    What goes around comes around. His arrogant attitude has been his downfall. When he was acquitted 13 years go he should have taken a lower profile, shown some respect for the victims and their families. Sad. I feel sad for his children.

    his children (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    Must be at LEAST andgarden's age by now, right? ;-)

    It was difficult to take a low profile when he was so actively searching for the real killer on every golf course he could find.


    per Wiki (none / 0) (#27)
    by dws3665 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:16:46 AM EST
    "(OJ & Nicole) had two children, Sydney Brooke Simpson (born October 17, 1985) and Justin Ryan Simpson (born August 6, 1988)"

    The youngest is now 20. Awful for them.


    Yup (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:18:00 AM EST
    Apparently I'm a few months older than Sydney.

    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM EST
    I'm a few months older than Sydney.  Sydney, Australia.

    His children are grown (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:18:24 AM EST
    He did try to live a low key life in Florida. No matter what he did, it brought attention.

    He was attempting a recovery of items that were personal to him and had no value to anyone besides him and his children.


    I did that once. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:43:30 AM EST
    However, I enlisted the help of the campus police when I found my stolen bike locked up on campus.

    End result:

    One college student who was out a couple hundred bucks for buying a stolen bike from a business - which was not two blocks from my house and which I reported my stolen bike to before I filled out a police report.

    Said business was shut down because the owner got tagged for a seemingly minor infraction (purchasing my stolen bike at his residence, not his business).  The business was long suspected of selling stolen goods.  

    The alleged thief got a plea bargain for possession of stolen items.  

    See?  The system can work.  Did OJ ever contact the authorities before he went vigilante?


    Police help? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Rudy13 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    I think you are missing something here. Tom Riccio testified that he went to the local police who showed no interest in investigating what was reported as stolen property. He then went to the FBI and got nothing. The plan as he explained was to confront the people who had the property and if they did not give it up then a report would be made to the police. If OJ had expected the police to come why would he ask these goons to bring guns? In your case, you got cooperation from the campus police. OJ got nothing. Someone suggested that he could have filed a civil suit. Really? No one knew who had the property so who would he name in his civil suit. If the police had done their job in the first place this would not have happened but crime prevention is not what they do.

    that's your last insult (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    to OJ here, take it elswhere.

    His children have been through (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:18:50 AM EST
    much worse trials with their father. Were they in the courtroom during the proceedings or at the reading of the verdict?

    It can't be easy for them. I hope they have a strong support group in the Brown family.


    Difficult as it may be, isn't it (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:45:27 AM EST
    preferable not to denigrate the jury's verdict, especially since none of us were present throughout the trial?  Simpson has the opportunity to challenge the jury's verdict in the trial and appellate courts.  

    I'm denigrating (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:50:49 AM EST
    the prosecution and their charging decisions, not the jury.

    OJ STUPID (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:17:58 AM EST
    I sort of feel for the guy, but you have to admit he has brought much of this on himself.

    He should never have taken the cops on a police chase in California.  What a spectacle that was - I saw it live.

    I don't know much about this trial as I've been consumed by politics, but I do recall seeing video tape, hearing audio...and it didn't make him look too good.  He should have contacted the police to get his stuff back.

    OJ just isn't all that smart, I guess.

    I just hope conservatives don't take the low road and try to link Obama with this.  I put nothing by them at all.  They're going to do everything they can to take Obama down and if they can fabricate some connection between the two, they'll do it.

    Why the contempt for the Goldmans? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:48:47 AM EST
    OK - you were "rooting for OJ" - but why do you call the Goldmans relentless and hounding?

    They simply used the tools at hand. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:10:18 AM EST
    And all they got was money, which isn't nearly the same as denying someone their freedom.

    If you want to gripe about people about hounding others mercilessly for money, the paparazzi is a better target.


    they were relentless and hounding (none / 0) (#66)
    by sancho on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:51:54 AM EST
    I thought that had something (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    to do with Simpson not complying readily with the settlement.  Or did I miss something and did Simpson comply promptly and fully with the terms of the settlement?

    Settlement? (none / 0) (#82)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    My memory was that the Goldmans' case against OJ was litigated to a verdict.  So what OJ is alleged not to have complied with would be called a "judgment".

    As for the Goldmans being relentless, who can blame them? Their son was murdered for no reason.

    If only every parent of every kid killed in Bush's criminal war acted the same.


    Sorry, IANAL! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Judgement.  Not settlement.

    If Simpson had complied with the judgment, the Goldmans would probably have been satisfied.  I remember something about Simpson trying to shelter  his assets.


    The Relentless Goldmans? (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Doc Rock on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Let's not vilify those who suffered the loss of their child only to see the accused, against whom there was a preponderance of evidence, released by an apparent racial bias of the jury of "his peers".  Whatever the legal merits of the present prosecution,  I think the preponderance of the sympathy should be for the Goldman family who were robbed again in the civil judgment with OJ being able to sequester much of his income, rather than for OJ.  This is just one schmuck's opinion, but then I'm just a Liberal and not a lawyer.

    Well said (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    What the Goldman's went through was devastating. I don't know what my life would be like if I lost my son to the jealous outrage of a very high-profile, wealthy, and socially protected celebrity who had absolutely no reason to slice his throat.

    It is really sad to see this family have such a difficult time moving on with their lives absent of Ron, but I still have my son and don't have any idea how difficult their journey is.


    Another view (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    expressed in the comments to my post on the Goldman's going to court to take O.J.'s watch:

    Have you ever wondered how the Goldmans keep their relentless pursuit of OJ going year after year?  I realize it's not a legal question.  It's more about psychology and emotional survival.  Wouldn't you want to "move on" at some point?  There are many levels and layers of grief, but to nurse and nurture one's anger and resentment for decades seems almost as tragic as the murder itself.  The constant vigilence over what the murderer is doing, acquiring, spending would seem to rip into the scar tissue of the grief incessantly.  If I made the decision to go on living after the murder of my child, I would need to make peace within my own soul in order to remember what was good about that child's life rather than how he died.  Pray God I never have to know this kind of grief, but surely the Goldmans can find a better way to remember their loved one.

    That's one person's view... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by rghojai on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    ... and a monumentally hypothetical, speculative opinion from someone who, as best I know, hasn't walked an inch in their shoes, from someone who sees fit to state how and why the Goldmans should act as they do.

    Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but this suggests that what might--might--work best for you in an incalculably difficult situation is how the Goldmans should handle things (with an implication that they are handling things incorrectly and a judgmental tone).


    When parents lose a child there is no way (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:28:02 AM EST
    to define a proper reaction. Many people who lose a child, even an adult child, cannot find a way to get beyond the loss. They build the rest of their lives into a monument of their tragedy. If there was only one proper way to do this, there would be only one proper way to do everything and that would make nothing worthwhile.

    As a criminal defense lawyer living in Vegas, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lawyerjim on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    I agree that this case would never have been prosecuted the way it was if he had not been O.J.  even though, technically, he was guilty of all of the charges.

    However, as a believer in Karma, I believe he got what he deserved.

    A criminal defense lawyer (2.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    would not believe that someone should go to jail for one crime because in the past they committed a different crime for which they were acquitted and which had no relation to the current criminal charges or trial.

    Did you just join the defense bar after leaving the DA's office?


    I can see things from more than one point of view (none / 0) (#98)
    by lawyerjim on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    As a criminal defense attorney, I agree that he was overcharged, overprosecuted and railroaded by the jury because of the 1995 acquittal.  I have problems with almost every witness and especially with the use of immunity and letting the worst of the bunch plead down from multiple possible life sentences to probation.  It was an incredible case of coercion by the prosecutors and if there is any fairness at all in our "Justice" system, it will be overturned on appeal.

    I believe O.J. committed murder in 1994.  I believe the police did an incredibly poor job investigating and documenting it.  And even though I believe he committed the murders, I believe he should have been found not guilty because of police misconduct.  

    I am and atheist so I don't believe in being punished in the afterlife.  I believe in Karma.  I believe what goes around, comes around.  I believe that if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you.

    And, I am deeply offended that you accuse me of being a former prosecutor.


    OJ Committed Murder? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Rudy13 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    Sorry, I am not a lawyer but I cannot imagine how a lawyer could have watched the criminal trial and say that he committed murder. I might have missed about 5% of the trial but anyway I looked at the evidence I could not imagine that Simpson had the motive, time and resolve to have committed a double murder in the prosecution's timeframe, clean up except for a few drops of blood in his Bronco, return home, dispose of the weapon and clothing, shower, dress and be ready for limo at 5 minutes to 11. As Henry Lee commented, he must have been some kind of super-human martial arts person to have done that. One question: which entrance did OJ use to enter his property when he returned from the so-called crime? The blood led from his Bronco through the Rockingham driveway to his house but the glove was found at the rear of the house. Did he go over the fence before or after he left the blood trail from the Bronco? Superman couldn't do this.

    This is the (none / 0) (#108)
    by JamesTX on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    hallmark of conservative reasoning. It was evident in the Hazaifa Parhat SCOTUS case where the "evidence" presented for guilt was simply the government's claim that the defendant was guilty, with the added comical claim that the evidence was stronger because the government had made the claim "three times". Conservatives justify present irrational beliefs by citing past irrational acts, and those past irrational acts were themselves justified by citing prior irrational acts. Everything is based in a lie, but they hope you will forget about past lies and accept them as evidence to support the current lie. It is the modus operandi of the conservative political machine -- they know the public has a short memory, so they can change lies into truth by simply waiting for people to forget!

    He probably would have been (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    convicted of something, even if it was pled down.  This was not a "misunderstanding".

    Innocent (none / 0) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    until proven guilty.  Right, counselor?

    eye for an eye (3.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sancho on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    not my cup of tea. think of all the better pursuits everyone associated with the goldmans' (understandable)quest for vengeance might have pursued--including, i suspect, the goldmans.  they enlisted thousands of hours belonging to others to aid them in the destruction of a man judged not guilty by the legal system.

    Except (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    Pursuant to the Goldmans' work, OJ was found liable for the death of their son.

    For me, what OJ's murder trial showed was how awful the criminal justice system is in this country.  It is premised on the criminally accused -- for the most part -- not having full access to competent counsel that have the time and resources needed to adequately defend the case.  The cops were sloppy and unprofessional because most of the people they help convict don't have the resources to show them for what they are.

    OJ did, it it was probably too bad that a rich guy who could afford F. Lee Bailey probably got away with murder.  But the larger tragedy is how many poorer people get sent up simply because the system is rigged against them.

    As a civil lawyer, when I appear in some of California's more rural counties, I have to sit through criminal calendars before my case is called.  To me it's appalling to witness the conviction machine, where the judge, the bailiff, the public defender, the deputy DA, the court reporter and the courtroom deputy -- all separate working parts of the same apparatus -- are laughing and joking together about sports and celebrities, while shackled poor people look on in bewilderment.

    OJ avoided that kind of sordid spectacle because he had money and was a celebrity.  Too bad anybody has to endure it.


    by my view, (none / 0) (#102)
    by sancho on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    and i'm no fan of oj's, such trials amount to a kind of legal double jeopardy where if you "get off" in one venue, you can be gotten in another venue for essentially the same act.

    i wouldnt want to be subject to such so-called justice.

    who wants a system where one can be continually retried until one is found guilty.

    i mean, besides lawyers.


    You have to have (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    loads of cash to pursue that kind of agenda - and a viable cause.  Most people aren't going to pursue a civil suit unless the defendant has the assets to make it worth their while.

    How many civil suits like the Goldmans have you ever heard of?  Even the Goldmans suit didn't amount to much - reportedly Simpson paid $500k on a $33+ million judgment.


    as i said, (none / 0) (#111)
    by sancho on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    who could like such a system but lawyers and the rich. and you, apparently.

    My dad called me (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    And the first words that came out of his mouth were, "they finally got him."  If he had just killed a black lady years ago, and used his money to get off, everyone would have just left him alone.

    Oh, how I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    He killed the mother of his two youngest children, and he killed the only son of another family. All out of jealousy, and he trusted his celebrity to see him through it. Not for one second do I think there was anything racial about it. Explain his enormous celebrity status and use race as the foundation.

    Now that OJ is behind bars (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    I think there is a good chance race relations will improve.

    I'd settle for (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    not having to hear about him.  

    (Just looked up his wiki page - interesting.)


    Race relations will improve? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Rudy13 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM EST
    You must have your head buried in the sand to make such a ridiculous suggestion. This kind of justice only exacerbates the problem. Many blacks are not going to like what has happened to OJ and particularly when so many whites are gloating about the outcome. Maybe you live in Canada.

    Reuters report says prosecutor's (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:38:50 AM EST
    closing argument included statement the present charges stem from the events of 1994.  Wondering how they tied that up re admissibility to the satisfaction of the trial judge.  

    I see most of this.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:39:54 AM EST
    as overkill in the charges filed. The state would be happy I'm not on the jury.

    And all the testimony came from (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:42:41 AM EST
    those who sang for their supper...got sweetheart plea deals in exchange for testifying against O.J. -- and media deals. And they even had a tape of the cops saying they were out to get O.J.

    Your update on the lesser charges...what (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:44:42 AM EST
    does that mean as far as jail time?

    he was convicted on the most serious counts (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:11:46 AM EST
    as well, so he's looking at life. My prediction was wrong.

    It's also on CNN (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:50:49 AM EST

    Damn... (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:55:42 AM EST
    that jury wouldn't have gone home for the weekend if I was on it.

    They didn't. Friday night and (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:58:24 AM EST
    the jurors are in the box.

    Guilty on all 12 counts! (none / 0) (#10)
    by themomcat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:00:04 AM EST

    Is it callous to notice (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:04:53 AM EST
    that the OJ verdict, if by accident, is coming as a kind of Friday night news dump?

    13 year anniversary of the other verdict. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:06:16 AM EST
    That's just weird.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:07:14 AM EST
    I was in 4th grade at the time. . .

    Stop making me feel old! (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:10:10 AM EST

    heh, sorry. (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:12:34 AM EST
    So wise at such a young age (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:32:32 AM EST
    Good for you....

    Yup--ouch (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:27:40 AM EST
    I remember the exact moments I learned about: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:13:15 AM EST
    1.  Bobby Kennedy being shot. I was eight years old, and I remember it perfectly.

    2. The Challenger exploding.

    3. The O.J. Verdict.

    When the OJ verdict (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    was announced back in 95, I was working in Little Rock, Arkansas.

    Talk about anger.  There was a sign in front of a restaurant that popped up quickly that read:

    Money can BUY you justice!

    (and the word BUY was in red letters)

    I was 27 and being latino, I stayed in my hotel room that night.  I honestly feared for my safety, considering the anger that was felt throughout the city.



    I didn't know about (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    the other kinds of racism until after the verdict.  That was an eye opener.  I thought only whites could be racist until then.

    I remember the chase of (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:29:55 AM EST
    the white Ford Bronco all the way from Orange County up to Brentwood.....I was in a sports bar with a buddy and then all the t.v.s turned to the chase....think one had a split screen.....  

    I think that's when the media (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:51:11 AM EST
    lost all credibility with me.  They literally became vultures, hovering over to see if they can catch some good footage.  

    Only the Challenger (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:47:52 AM EST
    everyone else was watching the footage and I just blurted out "They're dead." when I saw the 02 tanks explode.  

    I was president (none / 0) (#91)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    of the Science Club of my high school.  We were all in the library watching the shuttle take off.  We were all so thrilled because a teacher was on board.  When it exploded, me being a senior (already had turned 18), I turned to my old bio teacher Mrs. Milsap and said, "that wasn't supposed to happen, was it?"  We hugged and we were all in shock/disbelief/crying.

    Gosh I bet we could have dozens of threads of "I was here when...."


    I wasn't much older. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    I knew how much power that explosion packed and there was no doubt in my mind.  There's always a risk, but everything had gone so well for so long that people forgot about it.

    I'm surprised now that Reagan didn't use it as an excuse to gut NASA.  But then who would launch those military satellites?


    Oh, man! (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    Read about it (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:29:57 AM EST
    on the schoolbus...remember thinking the dog was cute...

    They sure kept the jury late (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:26:03 AM EST
    They could have, one would think, let the jury come back on Monday.....Going an hour past 5:00 is one thing, but this is really late.

    stacked against him (none / 0) (#34)
    by marqpdx on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:28:18 AM EST
    i was feeling too he was being railroaded. lots of anger over the acquittal in L.A. 13 years ago.

    Jeralyn, do you think it possible the L.A. murder verdict was correct, that possibly he was protecting someone close to him?

    Probably impossible for O.J. to get a fair hearing anywhere in the U.S. of A.


    I agree it's unlikely OJ (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:33:28 AM EST
    would get a fair trial anywhere in the country.

    As to the criminal verdict, I do think it's possible the LA verdict was correct, but not for the reason you suggest.

    I'd rather not go there tonight though. I'm really trying to focus on this trial and what seems to me like an injustice to O.J.


    thanks for the time (none / 0) (#39)
    by marqpdx on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:35:33 AM EST
    thanks Jeralyn,
    definite vengeance trial in Las Vegas.
    now everyone can feel that "justice was served" and forget about it.
    keep up the good work.

    If I responded (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:41:57 AM EST
    the thread would end up being about his first trial, and I'm trying to avoid that. I wasn't dismissing your question as not being worthwhile.

    Here's my view on (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:44:29 AM EST
    his first trial and how O.J. was convicted by the media.

    Very helpful....thanks. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oldpro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:58:20 AM EST
    thank Jeralyn (none / 0) (#99)
    by marqpdx on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    appreciate the link and the thoughtfulness!
    be well,

    Question (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM EST
    deadly weapon, what are your thoughts on that? I could see injustice a bit better if a gun weren't involved. Granted, I haven't followed this closely, but from the original stories when it happened, the guns are an issue, no?

    * disclaimer: I'm a gun-phobia type of person. Whether you "mean it" or not, "deadly weapons" aren't taken lightly and shouldn't be, imo.


    ugh, weren't should be wasn't! (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:46:12 AM EST
    Stacked Against Him (none / 0) (#48)
    by jeramire on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:12:55 AM EST
    Everybody knows O.J. was railroaded. Many wanted it, and are happy he got it that way. Do they really support the law braking the law? Really? Maybe just in this case. A person being tried twice for the same case, and found guilty this time!! But that support goes a long way. It always happens again. Then they cry out against it when it goes against them. When it shouldn't be allowed to happen the first. The public knows O.J. was setup. Tom Ricco was the setup man on the surfice. Then he was quickly given immunity, a bag of money for interviews (to get public support), and a big pat on the back for doing a good job. I'm reminded of the Mark Fuhrman incident (setup). So what's really going on. The purpose of a setup is to make the person appear to be guilty. It's obvious he was convicited with an overkill amount of charges, that puts an exclamation point on everything.

    Did he or didn't he (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:51:34 AM EST
    get together with a bunch of guys, and ask them to bring "heat"?

    See my above story about my (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:16:55 AM EST
    stolen bike.

    Imagine what would happen to me if I had done something like that!  It wouldn't have made the situation any better, that's for sure.  

    That's the kind of short sighted, impulsive thinking that I hope most of us outgrow by our thirties.


    That's the one thing that puzzles me. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    OJ has plenty of experience with the law and lawyers.  I'd think that it would have crossed his mind at some point to see if he could have gotten "his property" back by legal means.  If nothing else, perhaps it could have been seized until ownership and provenance could be sorted out.

    If you can get away with double murder (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST

    If you get away with double murder, you may feel that getting away with this will be a breeze.  Lets hope they lose the key.

    This is off the wall... (none / 0) (#81)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    but if one supposes that OJ was in fact guilty in the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, his committing of another violent crime which was relatively easily provable could have been driven by an inner desire to be caught.

    I wonder what the (none / 0) (#49)
    by JamesTX on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:24:15 AM EST
    racial composition of the jury looked like?

    In reviewing all the evidence in the murder trial, I get sort of sick. Now that all the hype is gone, today it even more seems to point to only one thing. The LA cops (especially Furhman) tried to help justice along a little bit after hastily deciding he was the killer (because of the abuse history). The missing 1.5 cc of blood, the blood patterns on the socks, and several other things pretty much tell the story. None of it added up. If OJ had been a Republican Senator or White executive, he would have never been charged.

    The 1994 jury wasn't racist. They were just knowledgeable enough to realize that their role was evaluation rather than submission to authority. There aren't many juries like that anymore. Rebuking a prosecutor is something juries are, for the most part, afraid to do. I am not sure that there is any point in having juries anymore. After the challenges, there is nobody left who has any moral reasoning capacity or any ability to judge facts. They only follow commands from authority, just like they do in all other facets of their sick little lives.

    87% of Whites actually believe there is absolutely no doubt about his guilt, but Blacks know better. Too many of them have dealt with the White justice system, or have known and loved someone who has been crushed by it. That is why you can't find 20 out of 100 who believe he did it. Most people really didn't care if he killed them, anyway; they just wanted him convicted because of the abuse charges. Peculiar thing about Americans' reasoning about justice. They don't particularly care about the law or the facts. Ends justify means for them. Facts get in the way. Deliberation is a waste of time. They like quick, emotional decisions based on political bias and fantasy. That is why they elected Bush.

    That 1994 murder trial was a great showing of the asses of Americans. It was the apex of the conservative movement. White middle class Americans were at the pennacle of their worship of authority and their unrelenting and blind support of prosecutors and police. The popular attitudes that went into that case were the same attitudes that eventually brought us George W. Bush and all that came with him. Even with all the pain and injustice, all the dead kids, ruined lives, and destroyed dreams, along with the final insult of having our treasury robbed one last time before Bush retires into luxury, I get some measure of satisfaction in knowing that Americans have finally gotten what they deserve for their twisted and repulsive worship of authority. There is absolutely no evidence this man ever killed anybody, but White America got its way tonight. I hope they are happy. They have made such wise decisions for us in the last few decades that they should have one last hurrah. Maybe Gretta Van Cistern could run for president? Did they tack a tax cut for the rich onto the conviction?

    Always has to come back to race? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by coast on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:46:25 AM EST
    Apparently for some people (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    it really is "black" and "white".

    When there is (none / 0) (#105)
    by JamesTX on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    such a wide divide between beliefs about his guilt across racial groups, it does matter. I am not "playing a card". It is not a game. Black people in general know that they are not treated fairly and that the police and prosecutors are quite capable of lying, and in fact frequently do. Many of them have been there and seen it. Whites, on the other hand, infrequently encounter law enforcement, and they largely imagine the police and prosecutors as their friends and cohorts, often more so than is actually the case. Almost all Whites saw no question of OJ's guilt in 1994, accepting as evidence the impassioned claims of prosecutors and ignoring the gaping flaws in the evidence. At the same time, almost no Blacks could believe he was guilty, because they know how the system works, and they had no reason to ignore the flaws in the evidence. It is really more about prosecutorial discretion and abuse of power, but the racial divide in this case simply allowed the differences in viewpoints to be measured and neatly categorized. It isn't "coming back" to race as much as it is the reflection of different group's experiences and the resulting beliefs that are engendered by those experiences.

    sure (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:07:49 AM EST
    Uh huh, but racism didnt make OJ magically cut his finger the night it happened.

    Had one of the D's not been (none / 0) (#73)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    OJ Simpson, this case would have been prosecuted very differently, if at all.  

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM EST

    But it would probably be the same for anyone that had gotten away with double murder.

    Well, why is it that you support this jury (none / 0) (#80)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    but not the one in the murder case?  You presume a lot here.

    I'm with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#77)
    by nellre on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    I was not a member of the jury at OJ's murder trial, and so did not hear everything they heard, but at the time I thought the evidence looked planted, and I thought the prosecution failed to make a compelling case, given that a cornerstone was those damn gloves.
    But that was years ago, so I went looking and found the wiki for the murder case against OJ here

    If you scroll down to the evidence section it's pretty clear that the author had doubts as well, because one might wonder how a blood soaked glove could have been dropped in a spot otherwise pristine of blood... if the person who dropped it was the blood soaked murderer fleeing the scene.
    That one glove was found at the murder scene and one at OJ's house... is so overwhelming... he did it he did it, except that it's also way too convenient given that such carelessness would certainly have left mountains of other evidence as well.
    Multiple other problems with evidence collection and custody leave me with (almost) reasonable alternate answers to "how did that get there".

    "We the people" thought he'd gotten away with murder, that the jury was wrong. Society has been treating him like a murder ever since.

    Disturbing (none / 0) (#96)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:47:34 PM EST
    Here's a quote from ABC News that should raise some eyebrows:

    Simpson's past haunted the case. Las Vegas police officers were heard in the recordings chuckling over Simpson's misfortune and crowing that if Los Angeles couldn't "get" him, they would

    OJ's verdict was decided before any trial.  His case could almost (I use the term loosely) a mockery.

    Re the Goldmans...and the Browns. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oldpro on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    You know, both families lost a child to a brutal murder and both families thought they knew who the culprit was.

    In their circumstance, I don't know that I would have channeled my anger and horror into anything so controlled as a civil lawsuit.  Maybe it's the Irish in me but I doubt winning a lawsuit in such a case would have satisfied the need for - call it what you will - revenge or justice.

    I dunno...I suspect that if I thought you had killed my child and got away with it, you'd be history as soon as I could get my hands on a gun.

    I am always a bit surprised when parents do not respond in that way...

    Yes.  I know it would be wrong.

    The Justice System (none / 0) (#106)
    by Rudy13 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    There is no doubt that OJ walked into a trap. It is hard to deny that this was a setup by Tom Riccio who was equipped with a tape recorder. Then, he goes directly to the Tabloid and other media and comes away with $210,000. But what about the prosecution. As I listened to the evidence, I kept wondering, was there ever a gun in that room? How could so many people not see it? The tape does not capture anyone mouthing the word "gun." And, OJ never had a gun in his hand at no time. How could this be an armed robbery? The problem here is that the judge was too willing to accomodate the prosecution and deny the defense their time to cross-examine the witnesses. I am only bringing this up to show what is wrong with this case. However, OJ was not going to get a fair trial no matter what the defense did. These jurors were predisposed to a guilty verdict from the word go. This was payback time pure and simple. Well, there are a lot of people who will be happy for this verdict.
    I expect an appeal but I would not hold my breath that the appellate court will order a new trial or even throw out this verdict. Justice is not blind.

    I agree entirely. (none / 0) (#110)
    by JamesTX on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    This has all the earmarks of an elaborate scheme to manipulate OJ into doing something illegal. Most people in criminal justice know that the most important thing for a person with a record to do is to be very careful about being drawn into situations where you are doing something illegal. Usually, the pitfall is something a normal person could get away with or at least get off lightly, but for which the penalties can actually be severe at the discretion or the court or prosecution. The police know which offenses those are, and they can easily use them to go after the "fish that got away". Once you have been in trouble, you can't get away with the little things that others do with impunity. You have to be ever vigilant, and always assume that the person who wants you to commit a common (but technically serious) violation is really setting you up. You have to assume someone is always watching and waiting, because they probably are! Nowadays, neighborhood watch groups and other groups funded by things like "weed and seed" have teams of neighborhood volunteers who use this strategy to "apprehend" people with records who try to move into their neighborhoods. They will get the person involved in something that everyone in the neighborhood is doing and getting away with (such as drugs or gambling). But when the victim does it, he gets the book thrown at him. I think OJ was had in precisely that way. Somebody paid for it.

    Question regarding some Tom Riccio (none / 0) (#116)
    by cubbear42 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    testimony, wasn't this recorded -

    1.  he, Riccio, contacted the local police department and told them of what was going to happen - the police department said they were not interested...  

    2.  Riccio then went to the FBI and presented the same scenerio to them - they responded that they weren't interested...

    3.  Riccio testified that he went to another local police department and got the same response from them - they weren't interested...

    My question to anyone:  Did any of these law enforcement agencies tell Riccio that this was against the law in Nevada and there would be heavy charges against anyone attempting to what Riccio stated...?

    This is pathetic: (none / 0) (#117)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    Afterthought: The relentless Goldmans will now have no reason to keep hounding O.J. for money as he'll be in jail. They'll never see more than a fraction of the judgment they got against him. (On the other hand, I won't be surprised if they try to garnish his prison wages.) They'll claim their 15 more minutes of face time on tv this week and then, I hope, fade into oblivion

    You should be ashamed of yourself!

    OJ was certainly relentless when stabbing their son.

    The only thing wrong about it (none / 0) (#118)
    by CRAsucks on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    I dunno...I suspect that if I thought you had killed my child and got away with it, you'd be history as soon as I could get my hands on a gun.

    I am always a bit surprised when parents do not respond in that way...

    Yes.  I know it would be wrong.

    would be you landing in prison for it.